Anda di halaman 1dari 12

CONTEXT

In recent years, online companies have transformed traditonal products and


services by providing free access to content which previously had a price:
Google for search and sofware, Spotfy for music and Wikipedia for reference,
to name but a few. At the same tme, access to the Internet and broadband
has increased rapidly, (as of 2013, 77% of the developed world and 31% of the
developing world has Internet access
1
) and huge growth in mobile connectvity
partcularly in the developing world has brought online content and interacton
to a global audience. However, whilst free online content has undoubtedly
revolutonised access to, and the sharing of, informaton there are also a
number of risks associated with it: exploitaton of the user as the product,
lack of quality control and review, copyright issues, poor protecton and/or use
of the users data, and the frequent possibility of overhype.
It is into this arena that higher educaton is now stepping with the advent of
massive open online courses (MOOCs). Higher Educaton Insttutons (HEIs)
are no strangers to the delivery of online content (e.g. Open Educatonal
Resources, Virtual Learning Environments) but MOOCs have captured the
press and publics interest in a way that few initatves have in the past and as
such have atracted extremes of both praise and skeptcism. It is this papers
aim to provide an overview of the history and types of MOOCs, their global
scope, and the associated risks and benefts of their use.
1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Internet_usage
CONTENTS:
Context
Overview: history
Kinds of MOOC
MOOC users
MOOC business models
Global scope
Future directions
Risks and benefts
Policy implications and recommendations
References
July 2013
U
N
E
S
C
O

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

f
o
r

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s

i
n

E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
INTRODUCTION TO MOOCs:
AVALANCHE, ILLUSION OR
AUGMENTATION?
Policy Brief
IITE Policy Brief July 2013
2
OVERVIEW: HISTORY
The term, massive open online course, was coined by Dave Cormier and Bryan Alexander
in 2008 to describe a partcular model of online course developed by fellow Canadian
academics Stephen Downes and George Siemens and originated out of the open educatonal
resources movement. Downes and Siemens course was based on connectvist principles,
in which student learning and knowledge emerge from a network of connectons, and
was taken by 25 fee-paying students at the University of Manitoba along with 2,300
online partcipants who accessed the course for free. The students interacted via threaded
discussions, blog posts, Second Life and synchronous online meetngs (Wikipedia, 2013a).
From this relatvely modest beginning, MOOCs began to evolve rapidly in terms of
pedagogy and platorms and atracted increasingly large student cohorts. In 2011, MOOCs
entered the wider public consciousness when a group of Stanford academics including
the founders of later MOOC platorms Coursera and Udacity demonstrated the potental
of MOOCs by opening three courses to public access (UUK, 2013). As an example of this
experiments popularity, Sebastan Thrun and Peter Norvigs course, Introducton to
Artfcial Intelligence, atracted 160,000 students (Yuan and Powell, 2013).
These huge class numbers identfed MOOCs as something diferent from the traditonal
model of delivering higher educaton content, whether on campus or via distance and
fexible learning. Wikipedia (2013a) notes that there are two key features to a MOOC that
contrast it with established university course delivery:
1. Open access anyone can partcipate in an online course for free.
2. Scalability courses are designed to support an indefnite number of
partcipants.
Out of the Stanford experiment a number of platorms appeared on which MOOC-format
content could be delivered, Figure 1 (UUK, 2013) charts this development. As of June
2013, some of the largest and most widely recognised MOOC platorms are:
Coursera (htps://www.coursera.org/). Founded in 2012 by Stanford academics,
Daphne Koller and Andrew Ng. Coursera is a for proft educatonal enterprise
and is currently the largest MOOC platorm in terms of university partners (82),
courses (386) and student enrolments (over 3.5 million unique registratons).
edX (htps://www.edx.org/). MIT launched its MITx platorm in 2011, which was
subsequently incorporated into a not for proft venture between MIT and Harvard,
called edX. The consortum now has 28 members, including: MIT, Harvard,
Berkeley, University of Texas System, Wellesley College, Georgetown, Australian
Natonal University, cole Polytechnique Fdrale de Lausanne, University of
Toronto, RICE, TU Delf, and McGill. 63 courses are available and c. 1m students
are enrolled.
Udacity (htps://www.udacity.com/). Udacity was established by Sebastan Thrun
in 2011 following his Stanford class MOOC experiment. It is a for proft educatonal
enterprise, and works with individual academics as well as technology frms to
develop technology and computer science-related courses. It currently ofers 25
courses and has c. 400,000 users.
FutureLearn (htps://www.futurelearn.com/), Open2Study (htps://www.
open2study.com/) and Iversity (htps://www.iversity.org/) are MOOC platorm
spin ofs from the UKs Open University, Open Universites Australia and a German
educatonal start up respectvely. All three are at various stages of platorm and
course development and have been seen by some as an atempt to produce
natonal compettors to the US-based MOOC platorms.
2

2
See htp://www.tmeshighereducaton.co.uk/422137.artcle and htp://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/american-
mooc-providers-face-internatonal-competton/44637?cid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en

Introduction to MOOCs: Avalanche, Illusion or Augmentation?


3
Open educaton
Online distance
learning
Open educaton
resources
ITunes U,
Khan Academy
Open
content
Open source
sofware
Connectvist
MOOC
(cMOOCs)
Learning
management
systems
MIT Open
Courseware
Consortum
Open University
OpenLearn
Stanford
xMOOCs
Udacity
Coursera
MITx edX
Futurelearn
2000-2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Directly related
An infuence
Figure 1: Timeline of MOOC developments
Adapted from Yuan and Powell (2013)
MOOCs and Open Educaton: Implicatons for Higher Educaton (CETIS)
KINDS OF MOOC
From Downes and Siemens frst MOOC in 2008, the literature is in agreement that there are
now two MOOC categories, based on diferent pedagogical emphases and organisatonal
models:
cMOOCs UUK (2013) states that cMOOCs are courses, based more closely on
the original connectvist distributed peer learning model. Courses are
typically developed and led by academics through open source web
platorms. Examples include various courses exploring developing online
educatonal practce, such as the original MOOC, Connectvism and
Connectve Knowledge. In general, cMOOC design appears to have been
less favoured by the larger MOOC platorms, likely due to the deeper
level of connectvist pedagogical knowledge needed in order to design
and run a cMOOC.
xMOOCs Typically, xMOOC design is used on the large MOOC platorms and is
based on a format of minimal, asynchronous support, with a subject
expert recording content and planning assessment (i.e. multple
choice quizzes, programming assignments or peer-review exercises)
for the student cohort to ingest at a tme of their choosing. The aim
of this design approach is to allow the platorm to repeatedly run the
same classes throughout the year on a rolling recruitment basis, with
the best performing students from the previous cohort asked to act as
community teaching assistants for the subsequent cohort providing
forum moderaton, technical support and limited academic guidance.
IITE Policy Brief July 2013
4
With this comparison having been made, it should also be stated that the line between
cMOOCs and xMOOCs is not as distnct as it might be suggested: Yuan and Powell (2013)
propose that, cMOOCs provide great opportunites for non-traditonal forms of teaching
approaches and learner-centred pedagogy where students learn from one another. Online
communites crowd-source answers to problems, creatng networks that distribute
learning in ways that seldom occur in traditonal classrooms in universites.
However, in the authors experience, Coursera (identfed universally as an xMOOc platorm)
courses ofen exhibit a number of similarites with cMOOCs, through their use of learner-
centred pedagogy (even if by accident, rather than design). Due to the large number of
actve students, course instructors are inevitably unable to manage all queries and as such
the course forums exhibit good examples of crowd-sourced answers, geographical and
language-based study groups and networked learning, led purely by the student cohort.
It is highly likely that this behaviour is not limited to Coursera courses alone, and will be
found on any of the other large xMOOC platorms.
In order to add further blurriness to the lines, the goals and purpose of the xMOOC
platorms cannot necessarily be compared Harvard and MIT freely admit that EdX is an
experimental space, designed to bring innovaton to the educaton of their on-campus
students (Yuan and Powell, 2013), and not, as in Courseras case, to bring educaton to the
world (Coursera, 2013a). This may or may not result in further MOOC categories being
identfed or refned as diferent platorms experiment with the model.
MOOC USERS
Publicly available data on the type of students enrolling on MOOCs is limited at this early
stage in their development, with Coursera (and Coursera partners) being the primary
source for demographic informaton on their student body. As Coursera is the largest
MOOC platorm, this should provide a fairly reliable indicator of the student statstcs for
other MOOC platorms but the source of the data for this paper should be noted.
As can be seen from Figure 2, the overwhelming majority of users on the largest
MOOC platorm have at least a Bachelors degree and a total of 76.7% of users hold an
undergraduate or postgraduate degree. This suggests that MOOCs are being used as
professional development aids for mature learners
3
who are either in higher educaton
already or in employment. This can be seen in the drive towards improved identfcaton
verifcaton processes (e.g Courseras Signature Track) for assessment, the development
of skills badges (as introduced by the Mozilla Foundaton), and the introducton of careers
services.
UUK (2013) have identfed a number of courses that are pitched explicitly at professionals,
including Courseras Informaton Security and Risk Management in Context course which
intends to equip its students to learn to defend and protect vital company informaton
using the latest technology and defense strategies [g]ain experience by solving real-world
problems and leave the class equipped to establish and oversee informaton security.
3
The UKs Higher Educaton Statstcs Agency (HESA) defnes mature learners as those who are aged 21 or over. The UKs Higher Educaton Statstcs Agency (HESA) defnes mature learners as those who are aged 21 or over.
See htp://www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php?opton=com_content&task=view&id=237 See htp://www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php?opton=com_content&task=view&id=237
Introduction to MOOCs: Avalanche, Illusion or Augmentation?
5
Doctoral (6.6%)
Masters (31.2%)
Bachelors (38.%)
Associate (5.2%)
High School (18.1%)
6.6%
31.2%
38.%
5.2%
18.1%
Figure 2: Coursera students level of educaton
(April 2013), (Coursera, 2013b)
This is an interestng development for MOOCs as it appears there is a potental for MOOCs
to act as supplementary income streams for traditonal universites in which they target
the professional development market in additon to undergraduate/postgraduate degree
students (who can stll atend the university as they always have). Indeed, Sebastan Thrun
(2013), the CEO of Udacity, has recently stated, we project the majority of tuiton revenue
to come from non-degree seeking students the present market for degree-seeking
students is limited.
Sebastan Thruns statement notwithstanding, this has not stopped his company
collaboratng with the US University, Georgia Insttute of Technology to ofer a fully
accredited Masters in Computer Science MOOC. The main selling point for this Masters
programme is that the MOOC platorm and pedagogy enables the total cost of the degree
to be less than $7,000, as opposed to the $40,000 equivalent on-campus degree. With
the huge amount of publicity that this development has brought both Georgia Tech and
Udacity (and AT&T, the collaboratons corporate partner), this Masters is unlikely to be
the last MOOC postgraduate degree, and the race to be the frst insttuton to ofer a fully
accredited MOOC undergraduate degree is no doubt well underway.
North America (43.0%)
Asia (26.2%)
Europe (17.3%)
South America (.6%)
Australasia (2.0%)
Africa (1.%)
43.0%
1.%
2.0%
.6%
17.3%
26.2%
Figure 3: Coursera students contnent of residence
(April 2013), (Coursera, 2013b)
One of the key critcisms MOOCs have faced from commentators is their poor student
retenton rate (Daniel, 2012), with most xMOOC courses reportng 5-10% of registered
students completng. In comparison to on-campus completon rates, the high atriton
fgures for MOOCs are ofen used as a primary reason to queston their validity as a new
pedagogical model. However, this comparison is not quite fair as it does not take into
account who MOOC users are, and their motvatons for using the platorm.
IITE Policy Brief July 2013
6
As we have seen above, the vast majority of MOOC users are mature learners who are
likely using the short courses to supplement areas of knowledge and are not necessarily
interested in receiving a certfcate or statement of accomplishment. This asserton is
supported by research into a number of MOOCs, which has identfed four types of MOOC
user (Kizilcec, Piech and Schneider, 2013):
Completng: learners who complete the majority of assessments ofered in class,
similar to a student in a traditonal class.
Auditng: learners who infrequently took assessment (if at all) but engaged
instead by watching video lectures. These students ofen follow the MOOC to the
end but receive no completon credit.
Disengaging: learners who start by completng assessment but then have a
marked decrease in engagement, usually in the frst third of the course.
Sampling: learners who typically watch a single video, either at the beginning of
the course or when the course is fully underway.
In their own research on Coursera students, Koller and Ng (2013) have identfed that up
to half of registered Coursera students never actually start their class (i.e. watch a lecture
or atempt a quiz) and as such completon rates using initally enrolled fgures as a base
point may be a misnomer. When the enrolled fgures are disregarded, and we use for
example the Sampling students as a base point, the completon rate for an average
Coursera MOOC jumps to 17%. Regardless of these adjustments, it may be that student
completon rates in the traditonal sense are not applicable for MOOCs.
All of this evidence suggests that MOOCs should or could be designed with diferent types
of learners in mind, rather than perhaps the undergraduate student as is the traditonal
HE market.
MOOC BUSINESS MODELS
It is clear that a number of the large for-proft xMOOC platorms are following the typical
Silicon Valley start up business model of building a user base fast on the assumpton
that money will follow. With the excepton of edX (established as a not for proft venture
between MIT and Harvard), Coursera and Udacity are both primarily funded by venture
capitalist frms and as such are in the process of identfying potental revenue sharing
optons with their partner insttutons to ensure sustainability. We have already seen
that Udacity will soon be ofering the frst Masters MOOC with Georgia Tech and AT&T,
however what other revenue optons are under consideraton?
Daniel (2012) quotes directly from the Coursera partnership agreement, which includes
eight possible monetsaton strategies:
Certfcaton (students pay for a badge or certfcate)
Secure assessments (students pay to have their examinatons invigilated)
Employee recruitment (companies pay for access to student performance
records)
Applicant screening (employers/universites pay for access to records to screen
applicants)
Human tutoring or assignment marking (for which students pay)
Selling the MOOC platorm to enterprises to use in their own training courses
Sponsorships (third party sponsors of courses)
Tuiton fees

Introduction to MOOCs: Avalanche, Illusion or Augmentation?


7
Since these monetsaton strategies were published, we have also seen Coursera introduce
the Signature Track scheme, an identfcaton verifcaton service whereby students pay
between $50-$70 in order to link their MOOC assessment scores to their verifed identty
(using a photo ID and typing patern test), and receive a verifed certfcate on completon
of their course. With a typical Coursera course atractng between 20,000 60,000
registratons (UUK, 2013) and over 300 courses across the platorm, it would likely only
take a small percentage of students to sign up to Signature Track for Courseras running
costs to be covered.
Additonally, Udacity have recently signed a partnership agreement with Pearson VUE
allowing Udacity students to undertake their fnal MOOC assessment at a Pearson VUE
examinaton centre, for a fee. With the students identfcaton veted at the examinaton
centre, this has allowed Udacity to ofer transfer credit to some US universites on a
number of its MOOCs (Yuan and Powell, 2013).
A fnal monetsaton method appears to be based on licensing MOOC content to third
party educatonal providers. A strategy across all of the main MOOC platorms appears to
be a focus on partnering with the elite higher educaton insttutons of the (developed)
world. This allows each of the platorms to tout the quality of its courses, delivered by
some of the most famous academics in the world. In turn, this quality content can be sold
to middle- or lower-ter educaton insttutons wishing to incorporate it into their own
syllabi.
GLOBAL SCOPE
Yuan and Powell (2013) list the following drivers and trends towards a more open higher
educaton market:
Globalisaton and the increased momentum for internatonalisaton in higher
educaton.
Worldwide growth and increasing demand for access to higher educaton, with
the projecton that there will be 120 million students worldwide by 2020.
Changing learner demographics, experience and demands of the dramatcally
increasing numbers of lifelong adult learners.
Highly increased access to personal technology and social media.
The need for changes in cost, afordability and economic models for higher
educaton.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Taking these global drivers above into context, how might we expect MOOCs and MOOC
platorms to develop in the near future? As already noted, the MOOC world is evolving
extremely quickly with new pedagogical types emerging, a new spectrum of potental
users and the gradual maturaton of the concept.
In the frst instance, the broader accreditaton of MOOCs by external bodies and university
providers is highly likely. We have seen that transfer credits are already available for
some Udacity courses, while Coursera recently announced that the American Council
on Educaton would be recommending credit for fve of their MOOCs. On the assumpton
that the external recogniton and/or validaton of MOOC assessment verifcaton services
(such as Signature Track or Person VUEs examinatons centres) will increase then
acceptance of MOOC qualifcatons by universites or employers will likely follow.

IITE Policy Brief July 2013


8
In additon to accreditaton, it is probable that we will see some integraton of MOOCs with
traditonal provision e.g. campus-based universites that use MOOC platorm technology
to support their fee-paying students: small private online courses (SPOCs), rather than
MOOCs. Key to this development will be the ability of tutors to utlise MOOC platorms
data monitoring capabilites, which will allow the identfcaton and targeted support of
weaker students. This fipped classroom model
4
also presents opportunites for tutors to
improve their MOOC-based assessment processes, as the platorm analytcs provide tutors
with the ability to assess where students are going wrong when completng assignments.
Linked to student performance monitoring via MOOC platorms, is the increasing use of
automated learning technologies. UUK (2013) provides an extremely useful summary of
these emergent tools:
Analytcs
Adaptve learning
develops a model of a
learners understanding
of topics and concepts,
allowing detailed feedback
on progress and providing
personalised pathways to
reach learning outcomes.
Social network analysis
provides tools to make
online class and student
networks more visible
in order to help more
efectve learning, linkages
and engagement.
Discourse analytcs
enables beter assessment
of the quality of
contributons and
connectons that a student
may make during their
tme on a course, including
outside of formal class
structures.
Semantc
web
technologies
Automaton of
personalised support to
construct knowledge by
enabling technologies to
make informed linkages
across the web on the
basis of labels and tags.
Applied to educaton, this
technique may enable
programmes to identfy
resources of interest to
students enrolled on a
partcular course in a more
targeted and automated
way, including, for
example, locaton-specifc
learning opportunites.
This augments the
signpostng role of the
educator by enabling
student to independently
capitalize on the size and
scope of the web.
Virtual
problem-
based
learning
Development of
procedural tools by using
technologies to enhance
problem-based learning
approaches through
immersive, experimental
virtual learning
environments. These
models combine problem-
based learning with
techniques developed
through computer games
and other simulaton
programmes and can bring
students and educators
together from multple
locatons. This can enable
a variety of skills to be
taught, ranging from basic
foundaton techniques
through to more complex
exercises.
4
Wikipedia (2013b) defnes the fipped classroom as a form of blended learning in which students watch lectures online
and work on problem sets with other students in class. This approach allows teachers to spend more tme interactng with
students instead of lecturing. This is also known as backwards classroom, reverse instructon, fipping the classroom and
reverse teaching.
Introduction to MOOCs: Avalanche, Illusion or Augmentation?
9
RISKS AND BENEFITS
A brief summary of the risks and benefts of MOOC involvement are detailed below:
Risks
Quality assurance of courses just because most current
MOOCs are from research-intensive universites, this does
not equal quality of teaching or pedagogy.
Potental tension between altruistc aims of MOOC platorm
founders (i.e. educate the world, for free) and motvatons of
venture capitalist backers.
Issue of most MOOC learners being mature graduates, rather
than pre-tertary level students. This has implicatons for
the marketng aims of educaton partners, open educaton
goals of founders, or for the potental evoluton of MOOCs
into credit-bearing courses (on the assumpton that is the
directon of travel).
Sustainability of current model current estmates of
development costs for a MOOC range between $30-$75,000
(23-58,000/20-50,000). This could limit partcipaton of
many universites unless fee-paying students are introduced
(and limitng the market means MOOCs are no longer as
massive or open) or other cost reimbursement schemes
developed.
Potental for the xMOOC for-proft business model not to be
sustainable, resultng in a drop in revenue optons, venture
capital funding, or students, any of which could end in closure
for a platorm over tme.
The MOOC phenomenon may be overhyped. There are many
past examples of renowned higher educaton insttutons
becoming involved with new online learning platorms or
technologies which failed to deliver (e.g. UKeU).

Benefts
Providing free and open access to educatonal content to
students anywhere around the world meets the widening
access aims of many higher educaton insttutons.
MOOCs are currently high profle and atract a lot of media
and public atenton. Handled appropriately, successful
involvement with a MOOC could bring a number of fnancial
and recruitment benefts to an HEI.
Shifing focus to online course development will allow HEIs
the opportunity to study new pedagogical methods, delivery
formats, and develop skills and understanding in course
design, which could impact both on campus and online
programmes.

Flipping the classroom allows the MOOC model to remain for professional development
learners and incorporates the widening access agenda by allowing younger students at
less prestgious insttutons access to content provided by leading academics in their feld
as part of their classroom-based curriculum; this also addresses the business sustainability
issue through charging licensing costs to insttutons wishing to incorporate the MOOC
material into their syllabus and brings a proft share to both the MOOC platorm and the
partner insttuton.
IITE Policy Brief July 2013
10
POLICY IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Peter Norvig, Sebastan Thruns co-instructor on one Stanfords frst xMOOCs, when asked
to comment on MOOCs said, its a confusing or an excitng tme I think schools are
experimentng and they dont quite yet know what to do (Azevedo, 2012). At this stage in
their development, it is not clear whether MOOCs are a disruptve technology which will
alter the face of higher educaton, or an overhyped and/or transient phase in educatonal
learning and delivery.
Regardless of whether they are here to stay or not, University UKs 2013 MOOC report
identfes fve key aims an insttuton should consider before engaging with massive open
online courses:
Mission: what role can MOOCs play in communicatng knowledge and expertse,
and raising the profle of your insttuton and its departments around the world?
Recruitment: what role can MOOCs play in diversifying recruitment pathways (if
that is an insttutonal aim)?
Innovaton: what role can online models of delivery play in improving the quality
and value of online and traditonal courses for students, employers and society?
Sustainability: what are the costs of developing and running MOOCs and what are
the wider implicatons of a shif towards free course content for existng business
and pedagogical models?
Pedagogy: how can an insttuton add value to the educatonal experience of
students beyond the standard MOOC platorm experience, and facilitate access
to a variety of social and professional networks?

Introduction to MOOCs: Avalanche, Illusion or Augmentation?


11
REFERENCES
1. Associaton for Learning Technology (2012), MOOC pedagogy: the challenges of developing
for Coursera. htp://newsleter.alt.ac.uk/2012/08/mooc-pedagogy-the-challenges-of-
developing-for-coursera/. Accessed 23/06/2012
2. Azevedo, A (2012) Google Releases Open Source Educaton Sofware htp://chronicle.
com/blogs/wiredcampus/google-releases-open-source-online-educaton-sofware/3882.
Accessed 23/06/2013
3. Cann, A (2013), Afer the gold rush: MOOCs are augmentng rather than replacing formal
educatonal models htp://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2013/01/16/afer-the-
gold-rush/. Accessed 26/06/2013
4. Carson, S and Schmidt, JP (2012) The Massive Open Online Professor htp://www.
academicmaters.ca/2012/05/the-massive-open-online-professor/. Accessed 24/06/2013
5. Centre for Distance Educaton, University of London Internatonal Programmes (2013)
Evoluton or Revoluton? MOOCS, Open Access and Online Learning htp://cdelondon.
wordpress.com/2013/04/11/evoluton-or-revoluton/. Accessed 24/06/2013
6. Coursera (2013a), About Coursera htps://www.coursera.org/about. Accessed 25/06/2013
7. Coursera, (2013b), Student Data Snapshot, presented at Coursera Partners Conference,
University of Pennsylvania, 5-6 April 2013
8. Daniel, J (2012) Making Sense of MOOCs: Musings in a Maze of Myth, Paradox and
Possibility htp://jime.open.ac.uk/jime/artcle/view/2012-18. Accessed 22/06/2013
. Holmgren, R (2013) The Real Precipice htp://www.insidehighered.207elmp02.blackmesh.
com/views/2013/04/15/essay-how-technology-and-new-ways-teaching-could-upend-
colleges-traditonal-models. Accessed 20/06/2013
10. Kizilcec, RF, Piech, C and Schneider, E (2013), Deconstructng Disengagement: Analyzing
Learner Subpopulatons in Massive Open Online Courses htp://rene.kizilcec.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/02/Kizilcec-Piech-Schneider-2013-Deconstructng-Disengagement-
Analyzing-Learner-Subpopulatons-in-Massive-Open-Online-Courses.pdf. Accessed
25/06/2013
11. Koller, D and Ng, A (2013), The Online Revoluton: Report from Year 1, presented at Coursera
Partners Conference, University of Pennsylvania, 5-6 April 2013
12. Kolowich, S (2013) The Professors Who Make the MOOCs htp://chronicle.com/artcle/The-
Professors-Behind-the-MOOC/13705/#id=overview. Accessed 24/06/2013
13. Kolowich, S (2013) Why Some Colleges are Saying No to MOOC Deals, at least for now
htp://chronicle.com/artcle/Why-Some-Colleges-Are-Saying/138863/. Accessed 27/06/2013
14. Newfeld, C (2013), Waypoints in the MOOC Debates, Part III: The Udacity-Georgia Tech
Contract htp://utotherescue.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/waypoints-in-mooc-debates-part-iii.
html. Accessed 27/06/2013
15. Quillen, I (2013) Why Do Students Enroll in (but dont complete) MOOC Courses?
htp://blogs.kqed.org/mindshif/2013/04/why-do-students-enroll-in-but-dont-complete-
mooc-courses/. Accessed 22/06/2013
16. Stephenson, N (2013), Science of the Invisible. htp://scienceofheinvisible.blogspot.co.uk/
search/label/MOOC. Accessed 27/06/2013
17. Thrun, S (2013), Thoughts and Financial Transparency on our Masters in Computer Science
with Georgia Tech htp://blog.udacity.com/2013/06/sebastan-thrun-thoughts-and-fnancial.
html. Accessed 27/06/2013
18. Trucano, M (2013) Debatng MOOCs htp://blogs.worldbank.org/edutech/archive/201304.
Accessed 26/06/2013
1. Universites UK (2013), Massive Open Online Courses: Higher educatons digital moment?
htp://www.universitesuk.ac.uk/highereducaton/Pages/
MOOCsHigherEducatonDigitalMoment.aspx. Accessed 20/06/2013
20. Wikipedia (2012a) Massive Open Online Course htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_
open_online_course. Accessed 20/06/2013
21. Wikipedia (2013b), Flip teaching htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flip_teaching. Accessed
23/06/2013
22. Yuan, L and Powell, S (2013), MOOCs and Open Educaton: Implicatons for Higher Educaton
htp://publicatons.cets.ac.uk/2013/667. Accessed 20/06/2013
IITE Policy Brief September 2010
I
S
S
N

2
2
2
1
-
8
3
7
8
The New York Times labeled 2012 The Year of the MOOC. Less than
24 months afer the launch of the frst massive open online course
(MOOC) at Stanford University and with potentally over 5 million
students around the world now registered with a MOOC platorm,
massive open online courses would appear to be a new and signifcant
force within higher educaton (HE). However, it is stll unclear what
efect, if any, MOOCs will have on the HE sector in the longer term
and whether their explosion in popularity has enough momentum to
sustain their method of educatonal delivery.
This Policy Brief aims to provide a background to the expansion of
MOOCs, explain their diferences and similarites, identfy the types of
students using MOOCs, investgate their business models and potental
directon, and fnally to scope the risks and benefts associated with
their development.
Author: Barnaby rainger Barnaby rainger
Published by the UNESCO Insttute
for Informaton Technologies in Educaton
8 Kedrova St., Bldg. 3
Moscow, 11722
Russian Federaton
Tel: +7 (4) 12 2 0
Fax: +7 (4) 12 12 25
E-mail: Liste.info.iite@unesco.org
htp://www.iite.unesco.org
UNESCO 2013
Printed in the Russian Federaton